Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 12, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
outside out and inside in. let's look at windows. >> let's assume this window is broken in the earthquake. we have wind and rain blowing in. one of the most important things you need to do as a homeowner is secure the plastic properly. if you just take staples or nails and put them into the plastic, we're going to get a strong wind and rip it right off. what i'm going to have somebody do is they're going to have -- this is an old piece of shingle. you might have -- everybody has a piece of wood in their basement. it doesn't have to be fancy. >> okay. we're back in open session and colleagues can we agree not to dispose the
5:01 pm
comments of this discussion and we have a in terms of 4 names. to the flu board on july 23rd and colleagues we'll take that >> any public comment on that. >> i think we can. >> actually, the motion was adopted in closed session and so we will take our comments on say closed session and we'll close public comment and so, now going to item number 4. >> this is an information item. >> so we're going to public comment for item 4 and seeing none, none we'll close.
5:02 pm
>> and in the general public comment it's closed and will now be closed due to no one coming forward. >> we seek adjournment. >> colleagues we're adjourned. >> >> >> good evening, welcome to the july 10, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the preceding officer this
5:03 pm
evening is board president, chris hwang and she is joined by lazarus and commissioner fung and honda and hurtado. >> and to high left is robert brian and he will provide the board with any needed legal advice at this evening, and at the control is the assistant. >> and also joined tonight by representatives of the city departments who have cases before the board in the front row is scott sanchez, he is a zoning administrator and representing the planning department and commission, and we are also joined by senior building inspect or and john kwo ng, the bureau of street use and mapping. >> if you could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers that they will not go off.
5:04 pm
and the boards rules of presentation are as follows, appellants and permit holders have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments in the 7 or 3-minute periods, the members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals, to assist the board in accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who like to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a card when you come up.. speaker cards and men's are available on the left side. they also welcome your comments and questions and there are customer forms on the left side. if you have a request for a board rehearing, speak to the staff during the break or after a meeting or call the office
5:05 pm
tomorrow morning, it is located at 1650 mission street and room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgov tv cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgov tv and thank you for your attention and at this point in time we will conduct your swearing in process, if you wish to give your testimony and wish to have your evidence give weight, stand up and say i do. any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code thank you.
5:06 pm
>> thank you. we will call item number one, which is public comment for items that are not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone who wishes to speak under this item? >> we can't hear you. >> these are some of the things that i made. >> do you want to identify yourself for the record? >> my name is paula davis. >> do you want me to stop the clock or are you going to say anything else? >> is there any other member of the public that would like to
5:07 pm
speak under this item? >> okay, seeing none we will move on to item number two which is commissioner comments and questions, anything? >> nothing, okay. >> actually, do we need to inform the public or is this noticed when commissioners are not going to be here? >> we can make that announcement if you wish. >> our calendars are not listed on the website? >> no. >> i will not be here at the july 31 meeting. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none we will move to item three which is the adoption of the minutes, commissioners for your consideration this evening, on the board's members of the june 19, 2013 meeting. any changes? >> no. >> i will move to adopt the minutes. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, would you
5:08 pm
please call the roll? >> on that motion from the president, to adopt the june 19th, 2013 minutes, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, those minutes are adopted. >> thank you. with the president's consent we are going to call item number 6 out of order because we understand that they have reached a settlement this is 13.059. this project is at 2366, 33rd avenue, protesting the issuance on may 6, 2013 to peter sun of a permit to alter a building, two new wagt rooms and one bedroom and storage room and tool room and laundry area to be constructed at ground floor per plan, enclose new bedroom, below sun room and ground floor remodel kitchen and 2 bathrooms
5:09 pm
and if the parties would like to come forward jointly, you can present the settlement that you reached. >> good evening, board members. my name is peter, and the last name is sun. receding at 2366, 33rd avenue. and so i am happy to report that we have reached a settlement with our neighbor and briefly, if i may read the set of settlement letter. >> please? >> okay. so there are four items on this settlement letter. number one, the light wall in question on the second floor has increased to 2 foot and 6 inches. this change from the original proposed step of 1 foot and 6 inches, this will allow a total separation of four foot and six inches between neighboring walls. second item, there will be no
5:10 pm
set back. light wall on the groundfloor. third item, a new window of approximately 4 foot by three foot will be added to the kitchen within the light wall. number four, final height of parapit wall and at light wall shall be maintained to allow maximum light to the neighboring windows. so, it is signed and dated today. >> did you also have revised plans? >> yes, i do. >> okay. >> this one. >> all right. >> okay, have they been reviewed by planning?
5:11 pm
>> thank you, scott sanchez, the department will not oppose the plans? >> could we hear from the appellant as well? >> miss gonzalez? we want to make sure that you are in agreement with this? >> my husband and we are agree about the proposal. >> okay. >> we understand that you want to keep an eye and see if he is going to complain? >> i can't hear you at all. >> in the meantime we want to keep an eye on the construction and see if everything goes well.
5:12 pm
otherwise we have to do it again, so we will see how it goes. >> thank you. >> everything is fine with us. so we agreed of what he proposed. >> okay. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, mr. did duffy is there anything that you want to say? >> i have one comment to the department of representatives. >> good evening, is this going to be done under a special condition's permit? >> okay, that is all. >> okay. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have just a short comment and perhaps recommendation to the departmental representatives, and when i looked at the packet and the
5:13 pm
drawing that was... and it is not one that provides all of the information that is required. and it does not show adjoining conditions and so it was very difficult to review the case of it. and if you see that, rather than having us bring that up, and requesting the additional information, perhaps you can recommend it to the appellants or the permit holders, so that they can supplement their submital. >> any other comments? >> i am going to move that grantee appeal and approve the permit on the conditions and the revised drawings that have been presented. thank you. >> could you call the roll on that please?
5:14 pm
>> we have a motion from commissioner fung? to up hold this permit with the conditions and revised plans. and the letters dated 7-8 and the plans are dated 7-3. and on that motion, to up hold the permit with these revised plans, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0 and the permit is up hold with these revised plans and conditions, thank you. >> thank you. so we can go back then to item 4 a a jurisdiction request, 865 market street, the board received a letter from mary murphy asking that the board take jurisdiction over the
5:15 pm
mobile food facility permit november 11 fmm-0061 which was issued on july 17, 2012, the 15-day appeal period expired on august 1, 2012 and the jurisdiction request was filed with the board's office on may 13, 2013, permit holder is kettle corn star, the project is the sale of kettle corn of funnel cakes and waffles and lemonade. >> we can start with the requestor. >> good afternoon, mary murphy and the county of the appellant, we are here today to respectfully request that this commission accept jurisdiction over the appeal of the renewal and by dpw to kettle corn star the respond ant. as set forth in the papers before you, they did not receive notice of the intent to issue the permit and only became aware of the permit
5:16 pm
after kettle corn commenced operations, the request was rejected who asked to put it to this board. when they filed an appeal it was also rejected. we are now before you requesting that you accept jurisdiction because we believe that this matter meets the standards established by section 10 of your board rules that the board may accept jurisdiction in the cases where the board finds that the city intentionally caused the requestor in being late in filing an appeal. the distribution lists demonstrates that the city failed to provide the requisite notice. and in making this request, we understand that this is a difficult situation, both west field and kettle corn have been diligent and have acted in good faith. for the reasons that we do not understand, west field did not receive notice of the permit application, this apparent error is at odds with the
5:17 pm
experience with the mobile food program because west field has received timely notices of other similar applications to dpw, as a consequence of this error, west field was denied due process, it consists of notice and an opportunity to it be heard and west field has been denied both. and notwithstanding that both parties have been diligent and as between the two, they have received the benefit of this and have been able to obtain the permit and to operate as it was unable to raise the concerns about the permit. kettle corn notes that some of the tenants did receive notice and that observation under scores the reasons for this request, the tenants would expect the landlord to undertake to protect the request and the investment in the neighborhood, the food program intended to revitalize the neighborhoods, however the area in front of the center is already extremely busy and vital not because of the hundreds of millions of dollars
5:18 pm
that they invested to build the center but because of the tenants that pay rent there and invest as a result. >> we submit that the situation meets your standards for accepting review and we hope that you will do so. thank you for your time and attention to this matter. >> miss murphy, i have a question, when did west field become aware of operations? >> i believe, i have not yet... from west field nicole is with me here today and i believe that it was after you noticed that they were there operating before or in front of the entrance to the west field center, do you want to speak to that issue. >> nicole with west field. we noticed when they first opened for business. >> when was that? >> i am looking for a date. >> that is the most exact date that you can give me? >> 2012 was last summer. >> is there a reason why there was not an appeal filed before
5:19 pm
now? >> and we or our office contacted dpw and we were told that the permit would be subject to renewal and the way that they do is has a new permit number and so we had the communication with the dpw advance of the renewal of the permit and then we were under the impression that we were supposed to wait for the approval. so that when the renewal was issued in a timely fashion filed the appeal of the renewal of the permit. but dpw said that the renewal was properly appealable to them and only heard the appeals of the initial grant and so they instructed us to the appeal of this board, when we filed it was rejected as not this being in your subject matter jurisdiction and it is a bit of a frustrating prospect as you can imagine and we are very aware of the fact that kettle corn has tried to play by the rules as well.
5:20 pm
everyone has pursued avenue and kettle corn about everything that they can, and this was not an error for west field or kettle corn, for some reason west field was not on the list and did not receive this notice, but the point of this story is that west field has never been afforded an opportunity to be heard on this matter, neither on the original permit and sent around in a circle with respect to the renewal of the permit. >> and this is my last question, is, or you mentioned that you have gotten notice about the other permits in the past. >> yes. and i guess what i am trying to get at is why you would be noticed as west field given that you are not a restaurant or a similar establishment as kettle corn? maybe that is the reason? but you said that you have gotten notices? the past. >> yes. >> the promissions are the 300 foot radius that you are
5:21 pm
familiar with and it is curious because the map of the 300 foot radius was from the wrong location and actually notwithstanding that, we actually would still be within 300 foot radius and the businesses are to be noticed whether they are a direct come pet or or not. and there were other tenants noticed i think as kettle corn has correctly noted in the papers and again we are completely conscious of the fact that this was not their fault they tried to do it by the book and it was a strange circumstance that we would get in the other situations through the people using some sort of radius map service, but not in this instance. >> but if other people were noticed and other businesses presumably within west field, what is the harm to west field, then? if those businesses have the opportunity to appeal or raise the concerns? >> west field is the landlord
5:22 pm
of a very major enterprise and i would believe that most are managed by someone who is just there working at the facility and would not necessarily think it was appropriate for them to be dealing with any sort of official notice from the city. i think that most people would expect that is something that the landlord would attend to if there is an official notice. i have not interviewed all of the tenants and i cannot speak to that, i would imagine that would be the case most people are busy running their businesses and west field's interests in protecting their interest in protecting their tenants who are there. and they are people who have been, you know, making an investment and paying rent and you know, have invested in their businesses at that location. and west field has invested in that location by building that center there and as a consequence, i think that is why the rules were set up to afford the business owners and the tenants in those businesses, the opportunity to be heard of.
5:23 pm
and the point of this story is that opportunity was not afforded to the landlord and it is a million foot enterprise, and it has another half a million feet at the nordstrom's side of it which it operates as part of the center under the school district and you know it is just, a very odd circumstance that they did not receive this notice. >> where should the notice have been given, 865 market street which is the notice and the front door. but the map the radius starts across the street. it is not an important point, it happened to include. >> who at west field did not
5:24 pm
get the notice? >> the physical location is on the fifth floor of the nordstrom side is 865 market street box a, is the mailing address. >> important to note. >> i want to know specifically you are claiming should have been. >> it should have been dropped in box a? >> correct. >> and it was dropped in every other doorway. >> so it just missed box a. >> except what in the public record would they find that?
5:25 pm
what if they are doing a search, you have not provided other than the list of distribution lists who should have been accessed or received notice as the owner, if you have not provided any assess or or any other information? >> west field is the owner of the center. >> and i know it, and i know the facility. >> have you not shown us that they should have received notice. >> i would respectfully submit that we are the owner of record and we are the property taxpayer. and we are clearly having developed that project under an opdba with the redevelopment agency and the city is well aware that through the records as well as the mailing records of the city that they are the owner of that facility. >> and this proper mailing address is at box a, at that
5:26 pm
location. >> where is that in the public record? >> you are not answering the question. >> where would you get it as a member of the public? >> is it on the website? >> it should be as... i would have to double check the assess or records. and i am not sure how the radio service is actually generates the list of the 300-foot radius. but it is clearly the owner of record of the facility. and the property tax that you know the property tax rolls should reflect that west field llc should have been noticed and as i said it has received notices in other instances and i believe this was inadvertent we do not believe that anyone was conspiring against us and we don't believe that kettle corn did anything wrong. >> i appreciate the comments and the problem here is how would anyone, if all of these different tenants were notified because they actually have suite numbers and actual
5:27 pm
addresses, how was yours missed? that is very difficult, if it is not caught on a public record, i don't know, and i don't operate the service or the radius services, that did this, so, it is difficult for our perspective to understand how with all of these other entities and all of these other locations, got this notice, and how did they miss you? >> this... >> well, i think that they missed you because that address is not located anywhere in the public record for them to have obtained. and had they slipped the notice under 865, would that have been sufficient? because in many, many places throughout the entire building and that notice has been given to 865 from my perspective. >> the notices that we would have to check the assess soar's records to see if it has 865 a, but the concept of the services is that they are supposed to provide notice of the property
5:28 pm
owners at that location and west field is the property owner and its address is 865 box a and it has received notices in other instances and so it is perplexing that it would receive notice sometimes when other people have used the radial service but not in this. >> does the business office has a suite number? >> the fifth floor or we will substitute box for suite. >> is there any other business on the fifth floor or just a business office? >> our office and the nordstom's spa. >> what is that actual address? >> i don't know exactly. >> and that is 845 or 865. >> 845. >> okay. so your position is that it
5:29 pm
should have been noticed to 865 box a. if it had gone to 845 fifth floor, would that have suffice? >> the postal carrier, i don't know if it would come to us. >> not everything fits into the box. >> is it a box or a slot? >> yes. >> i would assume that a package would not fit. >> if it does not fit in the box the carrier will come to my office. >> so that would be a proper place for delivery, okay? >> okay. >> i have another question going back to notice, i mean the time frame, within the jurisdiction that was filed. i don't, i think that i'm not following the chronology. and some time you are stating at the time of the renewal notice is when it was discovered or you waited for the renewal in order to appeal the renewal. and that was, when?
5:30 pm
march? >> it was in february of this year, i believe, we contacted the department and you know, the way that the dpw issues currently in such a way that often they have a time frame, and they are for a certain period of time whether it is for something like this or a street closure or anything and when it comes up for renewal and on its face you can actually take issue with that renewal. >> typically that will be the case but what dpw has stated in this enstance is that the position is that they do not accept any, even though there was a renewal required and that it would have reupped the inquiry, they basically take the position in the absence of any sort of complaints on the part of the person who holds the permit that... they almost take a position... >> what is the time frame? >> so that was in... the renewal of the permit was not timely when